Gatsby77

Fixed that for you. Again, it's *theatrical distributors* - not film studios - that determine when they swap films out. The exception is that distributors are generally locked into the first two weeks (so there's never a demonstrable theater screen drop-off in week 2). But after that, it's fair game - theaters can continue to run the film, or swap in others in its place at their discretion, not the studio's. And in this case, many of the screens Black Widow is losing are likely going to Disney's Jungle Cruise anyway.

Yeah - Shang-Chi is locked into a 45-day theatrical-only window. News reports are the Delta variant's set to peak in mid-October.

So it begins: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/clifford-the-big-red-dog-pulled-september-release-delta-variant-1234991133/ This is likely only the first domino to fall due to renewed lockdown concerns - and the recent box office disappointments of Black Widow, GI Joe, Space Jamz, etc. Still waiting for No Time to Die to be postponed again...

Don't forget Emily Blunt. She's queued up and ready to go, pending the results (or lack thereof) of Jungle Cruise this weekend.

Someone smarter than me tweeted, "If you have to invoke the pandemic in your defense of a breach of contract lawsuit, you definitely breached the contract." I'm thinking Disney's screwed here.

It’s earlier in the thread, but weren’t the terms that she gets a $5 million bonus when the film passes $500 million theatrical?

Except - we basically got that with the Josh Trank FF. Your mileage may vary, but I actually really liked the first half of the Trank FF film. It only truly fell apart in the last half hour.

Did I stutter? No one who has been paying attention would have expected Black Widow to outperform Fast 9. I stated on June 3rd that Fast 9 would out-perform Black Widow by at least $200M globally, And now a bunch of comic book nerds are surprised when that's the case? Underestimating the popularity of the Fast & the Furious Franchise has little to nothing to do with Black Widow's performance, and goes far more to your overestimating Black Widow's potential.

Why would you assume "BW is the natural choice to bring Per Theater revenue?" I didn't. BW's performance relative to Fast 9 doesn't change the fact that *every* major film released so far this year has arguably grossed far less than it would have if released in 2019. I'm still skeptical that Bond's release date will hold because of this.

Preserving this because it won’t age well.

This actually proves my point. You (and several others in the thread) have consistently painted Black Widow's theatrical under-performance as proof that it's a) bad (it's not, merely mediocre - I saw it in on Sunday), and/or b) a financial failure. While it's under-performing, it's *far* from a financial disaster for Disney. And it's leagues away from being the financial bombs that either Space Jam 2 or Snake Eyes are for their respective studios. Putting it out on DVD earlier than usual ensures Disney continues to maximize profit while also playing defense against reports it's on track to be the most pirated film in history. Big picture? This all points to a systemic change - a move away from theatrical as the primary revenue driver for studios. Black Widow was never going to "save movie theaters" any more than Tenet was or No Time to Die will. The industry has shifted - and at this rate, won't return to the pre-March 2020 landscape for at least another 6-7 months, if ever. In the mean time, Black Widow has continued to set theatrical records for the pandemic era, while also earning Disney tens of millions more in Disney+ Premiere fees. Space Jam 2, however, will lose Warner Bros. ~$100 million.

? My understanding is the title was originally advertised as GenX, but they got a cease-and-desist letter from Marvel, hence the mini-series # 1 having the name changed to Gen13 and being delayed a few months. There are true GenX versions that exist?

But…it reportedly cost just $77 million, roughly $100M less than Space Jam 2.

Only one of those films listed is on track to lose its studio $100M+ - and it's Space Jam 2. And A Quiet Place 2 is not "on the heels" of Black Widow, given that it's been out for 3x as many weekends. Black Widow is the fastest film to $150M domestic of the pandemic era.

I look at that chart and see how badly Space Jam 2 is bombing: Reported $170 million net budget, and the original did $140M / $90M / $230M in 1996 dollars.

Thanks. One of the things that annoys me about the current comic book market is - until recently (as with the run-up in the Byrne X-Men run), it was almost entirely movie speculation first appearance-based. There were folks in that Marvel Team-Up thread arguing that # 55 (first Mockingbird) was legitimately a bigger key than # 1. Which is I agree that equities are probably overvalued, but it's stability and liquidity for me - the ability to sell and have access to the funds within 24 hours. I sold a large portion of my comic book collection in 2014 and it took 6 months and ~100 hours of work to do it right, with sales split among here on the boards, Comiclink auctions - which took ~4 months from submission to payment, and a wholesale deal for the rest (thanks to an amazing boardie). After taxes, I made less than 20% overall on the collection.

Stocks. My last two big comic purchases were last summer. Ghost Rider (1974) # 1 - CGC 8.5 - for $410 shipped. Marvel Team-Up # 1 - CGC 9.4 - for $710 shipped. You can see my passionate defense of Marvel Team-Up # 1 as a key Bronze Age book (as well as my purchase in last July's C-link auction) here:

Really? Interesting. My 94 and 95 were only 6.5 and 8.0, respectively. Never had 96,100 or 101. Although the rest you list were solid 9.4s - and I had a few 109s and 130s. *Love* 129. It was the first X-Men story I ever read (age 11, via Classic X-Men # 35). If I were to rebuild the run, I'd get 94 first, 129 second.

No. You're extrapolating (aka guessing, aka making sh*t up) based on a pair of 4-year old articles that were *specific to Star Wars: The Last Jedi.* One of which - the "penalizing the LA Times for a poor review" clearly didn't do anything, given that the LA Times film reviewer basically trashed Black Widow. Black Widow is not Star Wars. Or Avengers: Endgame, event films with such baked-in demand that Disney had outsized influence on distributors from the jump. I simply disagree with your guess because it flies in the face of traditional movie theater economics - and the historical movie theater-distributor relationship, something I happen to know a bit about.

Well - or any keys. During that same period I bought 3x Strange Tales 110 (4.5-CGC 6.5), Showcase # 4 (Cgc 3.0), TMNT # 1 (CGC 5.0), X-Men 1 (CGC 3.0), Avengers 1 (CGC 2.5), and more. Several of those have out-performed the stock market over the past decade. Not sure I can say the same about the Cockrum/Byrne X-Men run in raw high grades.

As others have noted, it's the Infinity Gauntlet storyline, not Lim's art per se, that juiced this price. And with Silver Surfer and Thanos in a critical part of the battle, I get the appeal. Side note: even 12 year-old me wished Infinity Gauntlet # 4 had been drawn by Perez. That book was amazing, but Lim's (comparatively weaker) art turned me off such that I didn't even buy # 5 or 6 off the stands. Decades later, I appreciate Lim's art far more - especially his work in Silver Surfer 34-55. Crazy that he did the bulk of his Silver Surfer work - and the Infinity Gauntlet minis before he was 28 years old.

Umm...it's not like there were a slew of Taskmaster fans to begin with, so I wouldn't bet on this book. Cool character, but most of the run-up over the past five years was due to a) movie speculation and b) the classic cover of 196. Thanos - and even Ultron and Kang - are qualitatively different. Important characters in their own right - and heavily featured in classic storylines that have been read and re-read for decades now.

I reviewed several domestic distribution contracts a decade ago while writing a paper on movie theater profitability in grad school. One was the domestic distro agreement for Adam Sandler's Funny People. More than that, I've actually signed a domestic distribution contract with Disney. Have you? My point? As much as you're trying to call me a liar here on an anonymous comic book message board, I (similarly) think you're simply making up your theory that Disney somehow coerced theater companies into expanding the number of screens for Black Widow in week 2. What's your source for that? You may be right, but I'm skeptical because - at least in the 1995-2010 era - that's overtly not how it worked. If films expanded the number of screens early in a run (a la, say The Bourne Identity), it's because the theater owners themselves desired it, not the studios.

I have no idea - haven't tracked CGC copies for years, let alone during the whole collectible comics run-up of the last year. But I can tell you that in 2010-2011 I easily put together a raw 9.2-9.4 run of X-Men 103-143 (mostly via eBay) for ~$12-$15 apiece (shipped). Well under guide. Almost all were much cheaper than they'd cost at comic book shops back in 1990-1992, fully 20 years earlier. That's insane.

Yeah - we've seen that before. The pre-contractual demands for the Star Wars film are well-known. But I'm with Fantastic Four here. The contracts I've seen simply mandate that theaters are locked in from Day 1 - Day 14 -- that they cannot reduce the number of screens showing the film on opening night until fully two weeks later. If the number of screens increases throughout the run, it's almost always due to the theater owners themselves. Particularly because the box office revenue shifts from favoring the film studio to favoring the actual theater venue beginning with week 3. TL/DR: The increase in screens is almost certainly on the theater venues themselves, not on Disney.